Ladies and gentleman, best batten down the hatches because pretty soon all hell is going to break loose, as the first major leak of the next console generation has taken place. The leak comes by way of an Assembler Gamers forum member, who claims to have in his possession a genuine Xbox 720dev kit. The device itself is pretty innocuous, as indicated by the images above, but it’s the hardware inside that gamers are really curious about, and that’s what we have for you.

Though it has already been revealed that developer kits for Microsoft‘s next-gen console, which currently goes by the code name Durango, are out in the wild this is the first we’ve seen of one, and the first time that some of those juicy rumors have begun to fall into place. Among the details being confirmed by the dev kit owner, who calls himself DaE, is the inclusion of 8 GB of RAM, Intel CPUs, and an NVIDIA graphics card. The exact make and model of the components are unknown, but earlier details suggested the graphics card would be similar in power to the current Radeon HD 6670.

Along with some mighty impressive processing and graphics power, the dev kit is said to feature a 64-bit operating system and two forms of start-up. The first is assumed to be a traditional game-testing start-up, while the other is for some rudimentary camera tracking. This second screen (called NuiView) we imagine is the placeholder for what will inevitably be the next generation of Kinect.

So here’s what we know about the Xbox 720 based on the dev kit:

NVIDIA Graphics Card

Intel CPUs

8 GB of RAM (possibility of 12)

64-Bit Operation System

Support for next generation of Kinect

A lot of the details that DaE provided to Digital Foundry are sketchy to say the least, but the confirmation from developers that what he has in his possession is in fact a dev kit helps validate the claims. Many had thought the console would feature a much more powerful toolset than this, but a few elements like 8 GB of RAM have us excited.

While many have attempted to hypothesize what type of hardware the next Xbox might be packing, this is the first concrete details we have heard in regards to the system, ones that can be backed up with fact. It’s still a lot of leaps to make in order to believe that this dev kit is real, and that its guts will one day make up those of Durango, but the amount of developer support being thrown the way of this leak is hard to overlook.

Whether or not Xbox 720 will feature 8 GB or 12 GB or RAM, or what graphics chip it will be sporting, are all points of conjecture until Microsoft chooses to officially unveil the console — an event we assume will take place during next year’s E3. Until then we can start to hone a little more on our rumors, but still be ready for any and every detail to change.

What do you think of these purported Xbox 720 specs? Would this meet your qualifications for a next-gen console? What’s missing? What’s not enough?

125 Comments

Being a PC gamer has ruined console gaming for me somewhat, my current GPU is more powerful, so I feel like I’ve already had next-gen now. But this should be expected, the console needs to be affordable because the majority of console or casual gamers don’t care about what’s inside. They typically only care about spending money. Guess I’m sticking to my plan of “upgrade my PC in 2013, wait for a price drop in the consoles.”

But with the RAM and games being optimized for the particular card, the games can still be very impressive, no?

I might be wrong, but I always thought next gen consoles were not ever going to live up to PC standards. The games however will be something else entirely, much better in every way. So you’ll still experience something of next gen I think?

I read about that too, and think that’s kind of odd. Isn’t that what you do with a PC? Isn’t that one reason why console owners like consoles more? That you don’t have to worry about upgrading or anything like that? So now that they put it in a console, it kind of defeats the purpose…

From what I understand, developers have to make sure games play at base requirements, but will technically only have their own self imposed limits, so both sides are pleased. You won’t have to upgrade, but you can if you want to, which I do.

Hereticdonutboy 2 years ago

Obviously you Missed the story where microsoft patents implied upgradable parts.These are base stats, and if you want more you pay more.

I’m a casual gamer and I care a lot about what’s inside…
I just don’t have the type of cash to buy a high-end gaming PC, that’s all. The current-gen consoles are pretty cheap and they can still handle all the new games that come out. I may not be able to enjoy some of these games to their fullest on a console (BF3 for example), but at least I can enjoy the games…

My point is: most casual gamers just don’t have the cash to spend on a hobby that they only partake in every other weekend or so…

My motherboard, CPU, and RAM for my current PC build was only about $300… The GPU and harddrives are what I had from before. I’m playing BF3 with all graphics settings on high and it runs perfectly without a hiccup.

You may have that much power on your system as of now but that doesn’t say the same as above. You have an extensive amount of hardware that needs to run windows along with every extension and plug in that Microsoft bogs down its os with. Console are different in the sense that the hardware and os is optimized to only handle a select few tasks which allows for this hardware to truly perform at par with a pc.

On paper it looks like apples to apples but on a deeper scale it’s comparing apples to oranges

Yah, but I already have 8GB of RAM right now, and if I wanted to add more, it’s literally a 5 minute job… Not to mention cheap…

My CPU has an unlocked multiplier, which makes overclocking as easy as changing a number in the BIOS. Just haven’t had a need for it yet, been running all of the latest games with all graphics settings on high without as much of a hiccup.

But RAM isn’t even what’s important. I want to know how much memory that GPU has. Most likely this new Xbox will use shared memory. Which means 8GB is shared between main system RAM and video memory… I have 8GB system RAM and 1GB dedicated video memory, which is better in every way. Not just capacity, but speed, video memory is much faster than system memory, so they’re more costly, but since there’s only 1GB of it, it’s not a big deal. I guarantee you the new Xbox will not be using 8GB of this kind of memory, so basically their GPU will have to use slower memory and a shared pool of it… Heck, I’m willing to bet when they release the full specs that we’ll find out they’re not even using the fastest of the RAM available now. They try to cut the costs of the console as much as they can because they know they’ll lose money on the consoles, they have to make that money back with the games, so the more they can cut from the console the better…

My guess is that whatever hardware is in the next Xbox, is going to be able to handle UE4. The reason I say this is because when UE3 was released and used w/ Gears of War, Epic got Microsoft to boost it’s hardware a bit to be able to handle the third iteration of the Unreal Engine. So my guess is take UE4 into consideration, multiply it by like 1.7, and that’s how good next-gen games are going to look. More than likely though, we’ll see 50-60 FPS on the launch-1 or 2 years later titles, and during the last leg of the next console we’ll being seeing like 30-45 FPS.

You know, I’m probably just a stick in the mud, but it looks like a dude just took a few pictures of his PC, covered up the logo on the side of the tower (that is what they’re called these days, right?) and took pictures of a video or a picture he made in photoshop.

I believe the current generation of consoles only has 256 Mb of RAM so 8 GB is a huge step up. However I think if they want to “future proof” this generation of consoles 12 would be the way to go, especially if they are shooting for a ten year life span

Yah, a Radeon 6670 is pretty slow… lol. That’s a sub $80 video card, lmao. Wow, this new Xbox is going to be so awesome!!

Now if they were talking about a 6970, then maybe we’re talking…

When looking at ATI cards, ignore the first number. 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, those are just generations in technology, nothing to do with the actual speed of the card. The important number is the second number. You want a card AT LEAST in the 800’s or 900’s if you really want a powerful card. A 6670 is in the 600’s, so it’s one of the lower-end cards. It’s pretty much the second lowest in the 6000 series cards… And ATI is up to the 7000 series already, with the 7970 being the top dog I think… I would say that’s probably like 5-10 times the speed of the 6670… Pretty sad… And by the time this console comes out, I’m pretty sure they’ll be up two more generations past the 7000. Don’t know if they’ll just continue the numbering scheme and they’ll be the 9000 series cards, or if they’re going to start a whole new family…

The one good thing about it is that it is DirectX11 ready, so at least the new console would be able to make use of those graphical features. Just hope they beef up the GPU a little so that it can actually process them…

Really? Turn this into a whole pc vs console debate? Don’t we have enough of those already?

We know that comparing the two isn’t fair to either as they tailor to two different consumers. And we also know that regardless of who has better specs that devs are going to do their best to max out potential on consoles as that’s where the volume is for sales. Digital or physical.

Sure BF3 looks gorgeous on my $1500 pc but it looks just as good and plays just as well on my 360 and ps3

“Sure BF3 looks gorgeous on my $1500 pc but it looks just as good and plays just as well on my 360 and ps3″

If I thought for even a SECOND to entertain this very thought as “true”…then YOU…are doing something VERY WRONG with your PC.

As in…’go-turn-in-your-PC-and-never-touch-a-computer-again” wrong.

You must be playing BF3 on lower graphics settings and/or resolution to be saying that.

To be honest with you, though… The comparison between consoles and PC are actually quite necessary. After all… What OTHER standard are we going to hold the consoles to? What else can we use as a benchmark for the quality of the graphics?

You compare how bad it looks compared to a PC.

Then you let the manufacturers know it and make them understand that you want something better. Otherwise they’ll just hand you the same fist-full of crap time and again.

So… I’m just going to put this out there: PC’s make consoles look like garbage. This will likely always be the case until console parts are upgradeable and not ridiculously expensive in the process.

I figure that, eventually, consoles will become useless and we’ll find them just building PC’s.

There are visible differences between the two copies of the game yes, and while my pc may look better than my console, it in no way justifies the large price difference between the two mediums.

Better AA, textures and shading, as well as a much faster frame rate doesn’t justify the extra $1200 for the pc.

If someone wants to run a game that plays noticeably better than the console version, they are forced to spend far more than the cost of a console, and must continue to upgrade the pc as the industry changes. My console has been the exact same way since I bought it 5years ago.

I enjoy gaming on both mediums and I’m not arguing for one or the other, merely stating that it’s a stupid debate as both mediums will continue to thrive, and will continue to entertain us gamers.

“Better AA, textures and shading, as well as a much faster frame rate doesn’t justify the extra $1200 for the pc.”

…for YOU.

My $4,500 system is more than justified by NOT ONLY the fact that it makes console systems look like garbage…but the fact my system is also a home theater and speed demon in just about any task that I give it.

That’s the part that everyone seems to forget when it comes to these discussions. And I mean ALWAYS. I never hear ANYONE else mention the fact that the PC is for much more than just gaming. I think that’s what frustrates me the most about this particular type of discussion.

You are NOT justifying the cost of a powerful rig with gaming alone. Also, while you could argue something along the lines of, “My PS3 can do Netflix and YouTube.”… That’s all well and good but… Can it do Netflix and YouTube anywhere near as well as your PC? (Netflix is a bit of a no-brainer so it’s not the best example I guess. But you get the point.)

Of course not. Even if you can get on the internet at large on your console, it still usually ends up being an exercise in frustration.

There’s also, “My PS3 is also a Blu Ray player!” Yes. An inferior one that no self-respecting A/V enthusiast would build his home theater around. If you just want to be able to see your movie then that’s fine. For those of us who notice the differences in detail and actually care that your movies look their best and play their smoothest on that awesome plasma TV of ours… You go with a well-built Blu Ray deck. (Like Panasonic or Pioneer for example.)

You can also achieve this on your PC…which, in terms of home theater purpose, can consolidate and reduce the compared cost if you do it right.

Anyway… I don’t feel this is really a debate or anything. I’m just pointing out the contrasts. I personally don’t feel that there is ever any debate to be had when the only ground that anyone ever has to stand on in the end of discussions like this is “cost”. Ultimately, you are always getting what you pay for and it’s far better than any design-limited machine such as gaming consoles.

There is honestly no room for discussion once you squash the “cost” element. The only way anyone can be “wrong” is when they insist that consoles are somehow better than PC’s…because they never have been and likely never will be. Especially since we seem to be approaching a point where consoles may eventually end up being modular living room tech, thereby bridging the gap.

What about the games? There are MANY console games that are not available on PC. I find that a lot better debate point than just cost. I agree that a high-end PC is a great thing to have and it can be utilized in a ton of different ways. So when you factor in the cost of a home theater hub, Internet browser, work station, game player, etc. etc., a good PC will usually pay for itself. However, like I said, there are a ton of great games that cannot be played on a PC and isn’t THAT really what it’s all about, is the GAMES?

Of course a PC can play games that look better and run faster, that is not open for debate. But what if I want to play God of War or Mario Party? It is there that I, PERSONALLY, find consoles to be superior. Some day that all may change, but until it does I’ll just keep banging the sticks.

The PC does have it’s share of exclusive games and mods, some of which I find my self being quite envious over, C’est la vie.

When it all boils down to it, IMO, it comes to preference. Some people just prefer to play on PC some people on consoles. Neither of which are right or wrong or better. It’s just their personal opinion. LOL, when I go over to my Mom’s house, she is ALWAYS playing Hoyle Cards on her PC. ALWAYS. I’ve tried to branch her out, to try different games, but she just wants to play Hoyle ALL THE TIME! She plays what she likes. That’s her choice and if she’s happy doing it, who am I to tell her any different?

Ken J 2 years ago

I played God of War, all 3 of them. Do I miss them not being on my PC? Nope, it’s a freakin’ button masher, I cannot believe that’s the game all of these PS3 guys are all crazy over. Seriously, I beat all of the games by pressing one button over and over through like 90% of the game…

Same thing for Gears of War, I got so bored of that repetitive formula and how they hold your hand through everything makes it feel like the game was geared toward kids, dumb people, or people with extremely short attention spans… Here’s a little gaming tip for Gears of War. If you see a bunch of waist-high walls conveniently spread out, enemies will magically start appearing when you get up to those… *gasp*

Halo, another repetitive game, this time with weapons that don’t make sense (a handgun that’s both more powerful and more accurate than an assault rifle…) and the same groups of enemies over and over and over and over…

The only game that I kind of found interesting on those two consoles was Uncharted, but that was mainly for the story and the voice acting. The gameplay was pretty standard fare and the platforming got a bit repetitve and boring after a while too…

Now is there a game that I would actually buy a Xbox or PS3 for?? Yes, but only one, Forza 4… If I can find a Xbox 360 slim for under $100, I’m buying it, not even going to hook up the internet because I don’t need to pay monthly just to play online, I can do that on my PC for free… Maybe hook it up to the internet for a little while to download any required updates, but that’s about it…

The only console that seriously has a lot of exclusives that I’m dying to play is the Wii. Mario, Metroid, Zelda, those are all awesome games…

Of course this is my opinion on those games, obviously plenty of people disagree with me. If those games are good for you, then great, enjoy them, I simply don’t like them so I don’t really care that they are exclusive for those consoles… But I did just buy a Wii via craigslist, lol.

But when it comes to these other games that I have a choice between paying $60 for one running at 720p resolution with blurry textures, jaggies everywhere, or the same exact game running on a much higher resolution, with anti-aliasing so no jaggies in sight, crisp textures, increased geometry, more details, better lighting and shading, and in the case of BF3, also more players on multiplayer, all the while paying only $35-$50 for the game, the choice is pretty easy for me…

Matt 2 years ago

Infamous, Sly Cooper, Spyro the Dragon, Ratchet & Clank, Crash Bandicoot, Resistance, Killzone, LittleBigPlanet, Heavy Rain, Heavenly Sword, Gran Turismo; those are some PS3 exclusive franchises/games that are critically acclaimed and loved by fans. Those really are some sensational games right there. Plenty of reasons to put $249 down on a PS3 (less than half the cost of your PC setup, but more than half the performance ;)).

Matt 2 years ago

Also, if you don’t have a PS3, how have you played and beat all those PS3 games?

EastOfTheAnduin 2 years ago

@ Ken J
I was only using GoW as an example of a game that many people enjoy playing. But, again it comes down to personal preference.
Are there better games out there (other than GoW) that you can not play on a PC? The answer is a resounding YES.

One of my favorite games this year, Journey, was a PS3 exclusive. One of my favorite games of all time, Enslaved, was a console exclusive. Plus, some of the most anticipated titles coming out are for consoles only. Beyond Two Souls, The Last of Us, The Last Guardian (if it ever comes out), The Last Story (I can not wait for that one), the list goes on and on.

Plus you figure in all the Nintendo exclusives (past and near future) and IMO consoles are just plain…better. Like I said “Some day that all may change”, but for the time being consoles are where all the “good” games are.

Sure CoD, Battlefield, any kind of MMO and point and click adventure are far more preferable on a PC. But, until you can play Uncharted, Heavy Rain, Super Mario Bros, Zelda and ANY kind of Fighter on a PC, Whats the point? Superior graphics for a select few games are not that important to me.

I can buy a PS3, a 360, a Wii AND a Laptop all for the price of a decent gaming rig AND I can play all the games that I want(minus a select few). No offence to the PC crowd, but its just not appealing to me. I would rather play A LOT of “good” games, than a select few games that “look” better. Shoot, IMO The Legend of Zelda: ALTTP is an absolute, aesthetically beautiful game and it is a S@#!-ton of fun to boot! Does condoning it as 16-bit abomination make it not a good game? LOL NO! Sure, running Battlefield at max settings is nice to look at, but does it make that a better game? The answer is once again, No.

Again, it’s all about personal preference. Actually, lately I have been playing more GameCube games than I have my PS3/Xbox. Why? Because there are a ton of great games on it and I have a back log that you wouldn’t believe. After I type this though, I’m going to seriously tear up some Dream Drop Distance.

Really though, all I’m getting at is Games are just that…Games. There are good games and there are bad games. But just because a game runs at maximum settings doesn’t make it any better than any other game. Shoot…I still think arcade Pac-Man is the greatest game ever. Period.

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

My ex girlfriend has a PS3, and my friend has a Xbox. My ex took so long to get ready I was able to play and beat all of her games between a few days… And obviously my friend would invite me over and we would play some games. He got Gears of War for free, we both hated it. He got one of the Halo games for free, we both hated it. So we tried those two games, and now they are sitting there collecting dust. He also got Forza 3, now THAT game we both enjoyed the heck out of it… I wish he would get Forza 4 so I can go over and play that, lol.

And about your list of games, sorry, none of those strike my interest. Specifically my friends and I rented Killzone because of how “Acclaimed” it was, and all of us were like “wtf? people like this crap?” Seriously, I really don’t understand how people like some of these games. My friends and I all agree about Halo, Gears of War, and most of these console games that people seem to love. And my friends have consoles, but those are not the games they like. Gran Turismo is overrated garbage, go play Forza 4 if you want a REAL racing game with REALISTIC physics. If I can find a cheap Xbox slim (since the original is prone to getting the red ring of death) I might get it just to play Forza… Littlebigplanet looks cute, but not at all something that would make me want to buy a console. The rest of the games you listed I have zero interest in them.

And no, sorry, a PS3 or Xbox360 is not more than half the power of my PC and the additional $20 or so cost of every game will more than make up that other half of the cost without any return in investment… So keep having fun playing spyro and heavy rain, I’ll keep having fun playing ARMA II (my current obsession in terms of games, lol).

Ken J 2 years ago

@Eastoftheanduin

LOL dude, you’re hilarious. Actually you have that all backward. Console games are point and click, usually one button does everything, tell me I’m wrong. You want to do anything, whether it is to turn a dial, press a button, flip a switch, grab something, there’s a one button “interact” button. Whether you press it, hold it, or tap it, it’s one button. On a PC, like ARMA II for example. There’s a separate keyboard button for everything. For example, there is a separate button that the only thing it does is for stepping over things, and it’s not like your console where it tells you on your screen (holds your hands) what you can and what you cannot jump over so they can keep you going in the direction they want you to go. In this game, you have to make the judgment of what you think is an object you can go over and what you can’t. And it’s up to you to get the distance correct too. You can press that button anywhere and your character will go through the motion. So if there is a fence that is short enough, walk up to it, press that button, and your character will step over it to get to the other side. If you go up to a fence that’s a little too high, you press the button, your character will go through the motion and will not be able to get over. Yes, you actually have to use your brain to make a judgment call for something so simple. Not like the console games where it’ll tell you specifically “go over here” “turn this dial” “jump over this” “press Triangle to flip this switch” or whatever… There is a separate button to go prone, kneel, stand up, command your squad to change their positions, communications controls, etc. etc. Literally, almost every key on my keyboard is mapped to do something for that game… While literally playing through God of War, I used the directional joystick to move around, and I practically mashed one attack key the whole time to kill everyone… Another aspect of ARMA II as my example, the world is completely open. You can accomplish your missions in any way you want. They don’t hold your hand and tell you what you need to do and when you need to do it. Also, there are civilians and friendly foreign forces in the game. Yes, you CAN kill them. And unlike a console game that’ll give you a big X and a message “do not harm civilians” or “friendly fire” you can do this and kill everyone, and it’ll let you finish the mission, except now from that mission on, civilians refuse to help you (they often give you good intel if you go up to them and talk to them), and those friendly foreign forces… might not be so friendly the next time you run into them… *gasp* real consequences for your actions, in a game? UNHEARD OF!!! lol

So yah, sorry dude, but as much as you want to try to paint PC games as the simple “point and click” games, it’s the other way around. Lately game designers have made games so simple that they all work on consoles, but back in the day games were a lot more complex, but the problem with those games is that they only worked on PC. When they tried to translate them to work on a controller with limited buttons, it was a disaster… But almost all games now are so overly simplified, so linear (to make sure us “dumb” gamers don’t get lost), and rely so heavily on scripted sequences and cut scenes that to me, they are BARELY games and more like interactive movies…

“I would rather play A LOT of “good” games, than a select few games that “look” better.”

I think you meant to say “I would rather play A LOT of games that I like” because sorry, but most of these games that console gamers consider “good” are not really that good… I’m an old-school gamer, I’ve been playing computer games from back in the original Nintendo Entertainment System days… You know, games that actually required you to use your brain… And the PC doesn’t just have a “select few games that look better” it has plenty of great games that happen to ALSO look better. Best of both worlds. I agree with the Nintendo games, I just bought a Wii via craigslist so I can play the Nintendo exclusives, but honestly, almost none of these exclusives for these other two consoles really strike my fancy. Like I’ve said, I’ve played and beaten many of these “acclaimed” games and am not at all disappointed in their lack of a PC version, and one you mentioned, Uncharted, I liked it for the story and voice acting, but honestly, the gameplay, especially the platforming parts, got kind of repeitive…

I played the demo of Uncharted 2, and they made the FN FAL rifle backwards… Ooohhhh, pet-peave… I am experienced in weapons (in real life) so when people get guns wrong in games and movies I notice it right away and it just bugs the crap out of me. And yes, console games are the worse offenders in this, lol. But the trend (backward guns) started on the PC *cough*Counterstrike*cough*. But with Uncharted 2, that was an offense I cannot forgive since my FN FAL in real life is my all-time favorite rifle, and I think it was downright blasphemous for them to include the rifle only to make it ass-backwards… >:-O

Funny thing about guns in games and the real world. In Hitman, his signature weapons are the dual Hardballers. The two stainless 1911’s he is always seen with in the ads and in the logo. In the real world, the AMT Hardballer that gun is based on, is the biggest piece of crap, lol. It was overpriced and it was unreliable. They got famous after the movie The Terminator where Arnold’s Terminator was using a AMT Hardballer in the beginning, and after that, they got really popular. But was never a good quality firearm… And nothing against the 1911 design, that’s my all-time favorite pistol. But that specific namebrand and model was garbage… Anyway, I’m rambling. Random info for the day…

EastOfTheAnduin 2 years ago

@ Ken J
“So yea, sorry Dude”, but “point and click adventure” is a GENRE of games. I was not trying to shoehorn all computer games into being “simple “point and click” games”. Amnesia, Sam & Max, Monkey Island, Myst, Syberia, Full Throttle and even Shenmue and Heavy Rain are all considered point and click adventure games. IMO PC is the superior choice when playing these types of games. Most point and click games are often extremely difficult, it takes a lot of intelligence and problem solving in order to beat them.

Matt 2 years ago

Gran Turismo is not overrated crap. GT5 is one of the only racing sims on PS3, and the best one. The physics are actually very realistic except when it comes to rolling a car or crashing a car at high speeds. But if you’re gonna complain about those, then you, sir, are too picky. The rest of the game’s physics are perfect. I wish I could play Forza 4 so I could decide which game is better.

If you’re not interested in any of those games, what games ARE you interested in besides ARMA II? Do you only play shooters?

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

I understand it’s the “best” racing “sim” on the PS3, doesn’t mean it’s actually realistic. I’ve driven many of those cars in that game in real life, and they do not at all behave the same in real life as they do in the game. Forza 4 has that down much better in my opinion. Probably one of the best racing sims I’ve played. There are some PC exclusive games that were actually very hardcore realistic racing sims, but they were very limited in scope, while Forza provides a lot of variety and at the same time is also very realistic…

Matt 2 years ago

Really? You’ve raced, at high speeds, many of the cars in GT5? I find this hard to believe. Are you totally rich and buy a bunch of cars and race them on a track? I doubt it, seeing as how you didn’t buy high-end parts for your PC and haven’t bought an Xbox or PS3 to play any games that are exclusive to those consoles.

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

Hell no I’ve never “raced” them. I said I know how they behave, you can do that without “racing” them. Part of my job involves driving many different cars (no, I’m not valet, lol) so I’ve driven some pretty boring cars, but also have driven some pretty awesome cars like a Ford Hennessey GT1000, Chevy Corvette (honestly cannot recall which version it was now…), Porsche Cayman, Porsche 911, and a few others. No Ferrari’s yet, but after driving the Hennessey GT1000, those would be boring anyway… From what I’ve known, I’ve done corners in these cars at pretty high speeds, and these cars, being performance cars, will take those corners like they are on rails, especially the Porsche’s The Cayman is not an incredibly powerful car, but it’s very well balanced. In GT5, I slow all the way down to like 30mph to do a curve and the Calloway Racing Corvette in the game will fishtail like it’s some crappy unbalanced minivan… Sorry, but at least compared to how I know these types of cars perform, GT5 doesn’t replicate it very well. I’ve found Forza to be pretty dead on when it comes to the cars I’ve driven in real life, so I would assume the rest are just as accurate. Other cars in GT5 seem to perform just as badly, but I use the Calloway example because that one is built to be a race car, it should stick to the road like it’s glued there especially at those speeds, I wasn’t trying to take the corner going 100 or anything…

Although, now that I think of it, might have been GT4 and not GT5? I don’t even remember…

Matt 2 years ago

None of those cars except the Corvette are even in GT5. Maybe GT4, but definitely not GT5.

If you were fishtailing, you must’ve been doing something wrong. You probably had ABS turned off, which means you have to have skill to brake properly. You must not have had the skills to brake well without ABS. Even I use ABS (but only on 1, the lowest setting). By the way, the Calloway C12 isn’t a race car or a Corvette (but of course it is based off the Corvette), and it’s the only Callaway in GT4 and GT5.

ATG 2 years ago

@Ken J
Not taking sides in this debate because I agree and disagree with points from both sides.
If I’m not mistaken, wouldn’t a racing game like Forza be repetitive like Gears or Halo?
And you can’t compare ArmA to God of War, Gears, or Halo and then get onto the other guy about comparing Mario, Call of Duty, Forza, and Madden lol

@ the other guys (aside from Cyryl)
Your arguments suffer from false-facts and tend to sound juvenile.

@Cyryl
That is way too much for a PC lol to each his own, invest heavily in your hobby. I can’t criticize.

For the record, Gears of War, Halo, & God of War ARE boring or at the very least, OK. IMO.

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

NEVER BRAKE DURING A TURN… ABS has nothing to do with it, you brake BEFORE a turn, not DURING one. That’s how you lose your rear-end… (I’m talking about real-life here, not the game). You do the majority of the slowing down prior to hitting the turn, coast through the turn (in rear-wheel drive vehicles) work the throttle if you need to induce over-steer, then just BEFORE you exit the turn you mash on the throttle. You wait until after the turn and you’ve lost too much time.

ABS only activates when you’re smashing the brake and the vehicle senses skidding in the wheels. When they sense the skidding, the ABS module will activate the ABS pump that will redirect brake fluid and opens certain dump valves to relieve pressure in the brakes allowing certain wheels to spin a little to regain traction.

Maybe traction control will have some effect on your driving though… Although honestly I prefer cars without traction control, and often I will turn those things off while road testing a car if it’s a performance car…

And it was probably just a C5R or C6R or something. Callaway does make Corvettes and I probably just attributed their name to the one in the game, I’m not a Chevy guy, they are all the same to me, it’s a Corvette race car. Out of the bunch that I’ve tried, that was the one that surprised me the most, because even not being a Chevy guy, I’ve always been impressed by how well the Corvette performs (unlike the Camaro, that thing is a pig…). The others were exotics but were road cars, so you can make the argument that they might not perform as well as I would expect, but that Corvette was a made for the track race car by definition… But while playing the game, it was slipping and sliding at SLOWER speeds than what I’ve done in the ROAD CAR in the real world on road tires… I don’t know personally how the race car should perform, but I know it should at least be able to match and most likely exceed the normal road car version at least, don’t you agree??

Now I’ve tried the Saleen S7R on Forza 3 in the nurburgring, and you literally can make curves going 180mph, lol. Oh man, I wish I can do that for real one day… Although honestly I think I would be too afraid. The fastest I’ve gone is around 160 or so in the Ford GT but that was in a straight line. Those race car drivers have nerves of steel. I knew even only at that speed that any bump can be a major catastrophe, lol. So I slowed down right after hitting that… Ok, sorry, rambling again…

Ken J 2 years ago

@ATG

I explained this below in another response, but I don’t expect you to scroll all over the place to read every single post, lol. Anyway, how repetitive a game is really is down to perception. Every game is technically “repetitive” if you really think about it. The difference is if you find the actions they make you repeat fun and rewarding or if you find them monotonous and tedius. To me, games like Gears of War and Halo are repetitive in that the gameplay mechanics don’t make killing the bad guys any fun for me. The weapons are not loud and rewarding enough when I fire them, they don’t make sense to me sometimes, like how Halo’s handgun is more accurate and more powerful than their assault rifles, and the enemies pretty much just comes and goes in the same way and I don’t really feel rewarded in killing them, so to me, that is just tedius grinding, like mowing the lawn, sure I’m chopping down tons of blades of grass, but it feels more like work than fun. In games like ARMA, or Battlefield, I feel like there is an actual reason to kill these people. In Battlefield, obviously it’s the multiplayer competitiveness, while in games like ARMA 2 and the old original Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games, the fact that enemies don’t spawn, there is a set number of them and those are the ones you need to deal with, I know with every one I kill, that’s one less that I have to worry about patrolling the area later. While in these modern shooters, it seems like everytime you need to do something, it’ll always take a certain amount of time and enemies will just arbitrarily spawn until that action is done.

I forgot what game it was, but there was a game that kind of mocked that, where someone was like “How long would it take for you to open that door?” and the guy’s response was like “Oh, I estimate about 2 to 3 swarms of bad guys…” lol. Seriously, that’s how so many games are, it’s pretty sad…

And sports games by their very nature are repetitive. Since they are trying to mimick a real-world sport, you can’t really change too much without it becoming not authentic to the sport it’s trying to represent.

And I wasn’t comparing ARMA’s gameplay to the gameplay of any of these other games, someone made a comment about the simplicity of the control schemes, and I was only really referring to that, the control scheme differences in complexity between modern console games and what PC games should be like. Well, honestly the ARMA games take that a little TOO far, making the controls a little TOO complex, but I guess I was trying to show the opposite extreme in order to show contrast…

Matt 2 years ago

I know all that stuff you said about when you brake and accelerate.

Turning off ABS actually can throw you sideways. I’m not sure about fishtailing, though…

Ken, there is no Callaway Corvette in GT4 or GT5. As I said before, there Callaway C12 is the only Callaway in GT5, and I checked and it’s also the only Callaway in GT4. You must have been driving a Chevrolet Corvette race car. If you were using the Callaway C12, then I can say that braking with that car with all of the assists on is just fine. I didn’t fishtail once with it. But, like I said, I did have all of the assists on.

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

Uuuhhhh, yes, I think you’ve already established that, and I didn’t say anything to contest it. Obviously you’ll know the game better than I would. Here’s what I said:

“And it was probably just a C5R or C6R or something. Callaway does make Corvettes and I probably just attributed their name to the one in the game”

I said Callaway does make Corvettes, this is in no way me trying to contest what you just said and am saying they are in the game. They make Corvettes, but obviously if you say there are no Callaway Corvettes in the game, then the game didn’t include them. But I know the game does have one of the racing versions of the Corvette like the C5R or the C6R if not the Callaway one… It’s one of those that I tried, like I’ve already said…

And lastly, I don’t know why you’re so caught up with the braking. I never said the car fishtailed when I hit the brakes, I said the car fishtailed when I tried to make a turn… Again, you don’t hit the brakes during the turn, so obviously I’m not talking about it fishtailing while braking… You work the brake a little if you do find yourself a little too fast in the turn, but you do the majority of the slowing down before it. Braking too hard during a turn will increase your chance of losing traction… But again, I’m not talking about braking. Not braking. No brake. Not hitting the brakes, no problem with the braking, lol. I’m messing with you… Oh, but seriously, not talking about braking…

Hereticdonutboy 2 years ago

Your acting as though battlefield doesn’t suffer from a lower player count on consoles as well. 24 players vs 128 players is a big difference.

I’m guessing you’re referring to me?
I wasn’t trying to start an argument or anything… I was only responding to ATG’s comment explaining why some casual gamers don’t do gaming on PCs.

But, I have to agree with Cyryl somewhat… whatever you’ve done to your PC to make the games look “just as good” as on consoles, you better undo it
I’ve played BF3 on a PC and PS3 and the difference is as plain as day IMO.

And just out of curiosity: why do you have an expensive PC, a PS3 and a 360?

Because I have a job that allows me as well as requires me to have a higher end pc, and i can afford to own consoles with my income. Yet I still realize there are many people out there who cannot be as fortunate as myself.

There is a huge demand for gaming consoles, and there are millions and millions of buyers out there willing to buy consoles for a few hundred dollars. There are far less consumers like myself willing to spend over $1000 for a gaming pc.

That’s the market, it doesn’t lie. I’m glad I can have both worlds, and I like the way both platforms are advancing, as there are great titles and developers working on both platforms well into the future.

I have damn near the same line up as you, and i feel very lucky to be able to play games as much as i do, as well as on the platforms i do.

I dont mean to sound argumentative either, just stating while you and me can afford “higher end” rigs, whether they be gaming, htpc, photo/movie editing, servers, or just browsing, the average gamer doesnt drop that type of cash on one.

Which is why consoles are great. Give the average person who doesnt appreciate the AA, cell shading, texture mapping, shadowing etc etc a console for under $400, they never have to worry about upgrading, and know they will be getting the top titles for the next few years, and they will be more than happy.

So while we think 8gb and hd6670 level graphics is rather average to us PC users, compared to what the current gen systems are using, this is a great step. And i am anxious to see what the next gen consoles titles will end looking like at the peak of their performance. (if they look close to what a $1500 built PC looks like now, then i would consider that a feat in itself.

Bottom line, we love this stuff. Clearly, and are looking at a good few years ahead.

And wherever you get your prices for things must be trying to rip you off. I SAVE a lot of money by playing games on my PC. How much did the Xbox 360 or PS3 cost back when they came out what, 5 years ago? Over $500?? My total costs of upgrades to my PC since then is around $500 as well, except I was able to sell my old hardware, so I actually spent less than $500 for my gaming system.

System cost winner: PC

Then every game is cheaper on the PC. Examples:

Preordered Batman: Arkham City on Amazon for $45. And that’s a hard copy, not digital download.
Preordered Battlefield 3 on Amazon via digital download for $43.
Preordered Hitman: Absolution Professional Edition for $36

Savings on just these three games over their console counterparts: $77

That’s just three games, I already saved almost $100. More examples, I got Deadspace 1 for $3 on digital download, Deadspace 2 for $5, LA Noire for $5, both on digital download via Gamefly, Saint’s Row The Third for $1 on OnLive, I can keep going…

So this whole “saving money” on console thing is the biggest myth in the world. I know for a fact I’ve spent HUNDREDS less than my friend who is on Xbox. Actually between all of the replacement batteries, controllers, the replacement Xbox after the red ring of death, I’ve probably saved well over $1000 over my friend by being a PC gamer…

Cyryl 2 years ago

@Ken

You know… I was having the same discussion with the wife the other day as a matter of fact. My games library is incredibly expansive and it has cost me quarters on the dollar as compared to console games. (If not dimes, nickels or even PENNIES at times!)

It’s amazing how much difference in cost there is. Isn’t it? That lone is enough to justify blowing a large sum of cash on a PC. You’re spot on with that one, man.

Hell… Even my would-be-hoarding-cash-like-a-dragon wife has seen the benefit over the last few years. She even let me put down the $25 pre-order for Borderlands 2 the other day without a flinch. LOL!

Brian presents one legitimate counter-point, of course. The initial cost can be rough or, at the least, time-consuming. (If you’re building part by part, paycheck by paycheck like some of us did.)

But other than that, it’s just completely worth it. Not to mention the fact that, once you have your system built, your cost to increase performance over time as newer tech comes out is justified as long as you maintain the upgrade path.

But it’s a whole different story if you let your ENTIRE system fall into complete obscurity for a few years…as I did. (Life got pretty rough for a few years there. My system was 7 years old with parts as new as about 4 years old. Was a patchwork job. It sucked.)

This is actually a good discussion, guys.

Matt 2 years ago

“The initial cost can be rough or, at the least, time-consuming.”

Very rough. I mean, you have to start with buying at least a decent gaming PC. So, $500? And that’s one of the lowest-end PCs you can buy. Then you have to upgrade it with a bunch of expensive parts (this is, of course, if you want better graphics and performance than a console). This brings up another point: most console gamers and many PC gamers don’t how to install computer parts, myself included. We’re not computer guys. We don’t know how to put a new motherboard in, or any other part for that matter. So what’s the incentive for console gamers to become PC gamers in terms of graphics and performance? I don’t know if you can pay a business to install computer parts for you, but if you can, that would just add to the mountain of money you’re already spending on a good PC setup. The only other option is to get someone you know to do it for you, someone who’s a computer guy; this is, if you know a computer guy. And I’m sure that person wouldn’t particularly enjoy spending a lot of time installing computer parts for someone else’s benefit. I’d have to get my dad to do it, and I know installing parts in my computer wouldn’t be his idea of a good Sunday afternoon.

Cyryl 2 years ago

@Matt

You’d be very surprised, actually. For us “computer guys”, it’s pretty much a hobby that simply yields a very useful tool for many different things.

I have built more machines than I can recall for people out there. I have a few friends who will call me at random every so often and ask them if I can look their machine over. I usually tear it down, clean it all and rebuild it for them. Often times, I pull out extra parts I have and just put’em in for them.

With custom, from-the-ground-up builds, it’s kind of fun teaching them a little about how the parts all fit and work together. It’s kind of an adventure to help them figure out what they want and what parts to buy. Then we build and it’s usually a chance to sit and BS while putting it all together.

I don’t charge them a thing. I simply enjoy the work.

Plus, no lie… We tend to like showing off our skills anyway. LOL!

The only real pet peeve I have is with those people out there who are REPEAT OFFENDERS who simply disregard the instructions I give them to take care of and maintain their system. THOSE people… I charge $50 minimum to clean and revamp their system.

Seriously, guys… Buy a freakin’ can of air and update/scan for spyware every so often!

THOSE are the people who will take advantage of you if you work for free. I learned the hard way some years back when I got a bit overloaded on systems to work on. If I don’t charge them, they will never have incentive to learn. Plus…this also helped me buy MY parts. LOL!

I am getting the idea that you’re quite young yet. If that’s the case, then maybe you just haven’t quite figured out your own ways of making your own money. Also… Building a system is actually easy. You just have to be careful with the parts, make sure that nothing is grounded out and ensure that it’s firmly mounted.

Google and lots of forums will teach you the rest. LOL!

It’s all good, though. Just make sure that, if you DO want it, GO GET IT. Just make it happen when you can. Either way… Make it happen. *nods*

Matt 2 years ago

Then how about I just send my PC over to you and you can clean it and put your extra parts in there, totally for free? ;D

Ok, so computer guys enjoy messing with hardware. I don’t have a friend who’s a computer guy. Like I said, I’d have to go to my dad. But seeing as how he doesn’t actually mess around with hardware that much anymore, it’d seem more of a chore to him. Plus, you’re right, I’m young and don’t have the money to buy parts or a new PC (I don’t have a job yet). Since the majority of kids around my age don’t have jobs (look it up if you don’t believe me), it’s safe to say that the majority of young console gamers such as myself simply can’t afford to switch to PC gaming.

“Also… Building a system is actually easy. You just have to be careful with the parts, make sure that nothing is grounded out and ensure that it’s firmly mounted.

Google and lots of forums will teach you the rest. LOL!”

Unless it’s just unscrewing screws and similar easy tasks, I hardly think that someone who doesn’t know computers would be able to install parts into their computer. And I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that I’m not gonna spend hours reading forums and guides on how to build/rebuild my computer. That’s just ridiculous.

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

I think some people are getting defensive for the wrong reasons. I don’t think either one of us are trying to make the argument that you and all console gamers need to change to PC gaming. I personally chime in about PC gaming when I hear any of the common myths being brought up as the reasons why people claim PC gaming is “worse” or console gaming is “better.” I understand if someone prefers console gaming for the reasons that really apply, as in they like the simplicity of how they work, but when they start getting into “Oh, PC gaming is sooo much more expensive.” “You have to constantly upgrade a PC.” “Console games look just as good or better.” All of these are myths, and I know from experience that they are, so when people start saying these things I have to chime in and inform them of the truth of it all. Not at all attacking anyone’s preference to be a console gamer, just admit it’s for the real reasons…

Matt 2 years ago

And I’m chiming in with why switching to PC gaming just isn’t plausible for many people. The only way that switching to be a PC gamer than staying a console gamer would be cheaper is if you didn’t have to buy a new PC first. I don’t know if you can throw a bunch of high-end parts into a 6+-year-old PC without any problems. But if you want the best graphics and performance, you definitely have to spend more than on a brand new console. A 7970 series graphics processor will run you a minimum of $430 (I looked it up). And that’s just one part. A 6970 will cost you at least $340. I know you can buy cheaper and lower-quality graphics processors, but it’s still so expensive.

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

“And I’m chiming in with why switching to PC gaming just isn’t plausible for many people.”

Wow, are you serious? Let me try to explain this AGAIN. NONE OF US ARE SAYING ANY OF YOU SHOULD SWITCH TO PC GAMING IF YOU DON’T WANT TO… Seriously, I don’t know how else to explain this. *sigh*

And rule #1 of building a PC without wasting your money. NEVER buy the “latest and greatest” in terms of GPU… NOBODY but rich people who just want to waste their money should buy a 7970 right now… I’m on a 4000 series, a 4890, and I can run all new games with all graphics settings on high. There is not a single game out now that will “need” a 7970. There will not be a game that will absolutely “need” a 7970 for at least a year, I promise you. Heck, even my CPU, I have a Core i5, not a Core i7. If you build a PC with all of the latest and greatest right now, it’ll be overkill. You’ll be running games with all settings maxed out while someone else will have a PC that costs half of what you paid that can also play the same game with all graphics settings maxed out…

The only components I think are SOMEWHAT important to get a pretty recent version of is the motherboard because that has to support the form-factors that you would need to “future-proof” your PC…

My Motherboard can do 2 video cards. There are some that can support many more, but I don’t think I’ll ever need to SLI or Crossfire more than 2 cards at a time. Especially at the pace graphics are advancing lately (SLOOOOOWLY, thank you consoles…), it is for socket LGA1155, which supports Core i5 AND Core i7 CPU’s. So at a later point when prices fall I can sell my Core i5 and get a Core i7 if I wanted to. And I also compromised on the memory support. Some of the higher-end motherboards support triple channel memory, mine is still only double channel. But still DDR3, so not a huge deal. (Oh, and strangely, getting the current generation memory is cheaper than using last gen’s. Do price shopping and you’ll see that DDR2 memory will cost you twice what the same amount of DDR3 memory will cost…)

Anyway, nobody here is saying that everyone should switch to PC gaming. Again, I’m just pointing out the error in some of the commonly stated myths about it. If you like console gaming for the reasons you like console gaming, maybe you like the exclusives one of the consoles have, maybe you like just having to put in a disc and maybe just press A a few times to play a game, maybe you like the Xbox Live community, or PS3 Network, etc. etc. Whatever your reason, that’s totally fine, that’s your choice, game, be happy. I just hate hearing the myths about how super expensive PC gaming is or how you “need” to upgrade all of the time as if you NEED to have the latest and fastest available piece of hardware at all times… Games don’t get jealous that there’s a faster GPU out there and will refuse to run on your PC. As long as your specs meet the minimum needed for that game, it’s fine, regardless of how long it’s been since your last upgrade…

Brian D 2 years ago

and I too love love love love love my GS3. i go through my two batteries like there is no tomorrow. lol.

LOL, ok, my PC didn’t cost anywhere close to $1500, I’m playing BF3 on all graphics settings on high without any problems, and sorry, no, your BF3 on your console looks NOWHERE CLOSE to being as good. I really think console owners are either in denial or need glasses because I was at my friend’s house and they were playing Batman: Arkham City on their PS3, and sorry, but it looks downright TERRIBLE. There were jaggies everywhere, the textures were all blurry, and jaggies, jaggies, jaggies. There wasn’t a single line or curve anywhere without freakin’ jaggies… It was so annoying looking at how terrible that game looked. And the people there were like “what are you talking about? I think it looks great…” Yah… sorry, try looking at the game running on my PC, then go back and see how “great” that game looks on the PS3…

I like the idea of Microsoft and Sony releasing several consoles at launch, all with different hardware. This way someone who’s on a budget can buy the cheapest version with the worst hardware, but somebody who has the money and wants the most power and the best graphics can buy the most expensive version with the best hardware. The only problem is developing and releasing/selling games for all versions of the consoles. But I still like the idea.

Yes and no, the thing is, they don’t really care as much about profits made from hardware sales. I think at launch both Microsoft and Sony were losing money on every unit sold of the PS3 and Xbox 360. They get their profits from the games…

I imagine they’d still want people to buy the most expensive system, though.

Ken J 2 years ago

The only problem with that idea is that if you develop a game that can run on all systems, that pretty much means the people who spent money on the most expensive version would be screwed since you can’t make a pretty game run on a crappy machine but you can make a crappy looking game run on a good machine… Basically, for a game to be compatible on all machines, it’ll have to be developed for the crappiest version. You make one that needs the better version and now everyone on the cheap version will not be able to play it…

I know that. That’s why I said: “The only problem is developing and releasing/selling games for all versions of the consoles.”

My only solution is to develop different versions of a game for each system, so each system would run the game at its maximum performance. However, this would be very time-consuming for devs. Also, it would mean that devs would either take advantage of the power of the top systems or they wouldn’t, which would mean that the sole benefit of the top system would be better graphics. For example, maybe the cheapest system could only handle 24-player matches in BF4, but the most expensive system could handle 64-player matches. DICE could either put the time in make 64-player matches available for the most expensive system, or they could choose to not to due to the fact that it would take extra time. That’s just one example. So releasing different versions of the PS4 and Xbox 720 with different hardware is an idea that will probably stay an idea.

Or I guess the games have different scaling, and when it detects which version you have it’ll set the graphics to the appripriate settings??? I don’t know, still seems like too many options for the console market. I think the main appeal of the console market is how they can be the same, or “part of the group” with every other console gamer… Like a feeling of community…

I guess maybe that could work. But that means the top system wouldn’t have the benefit of things like BF4 or whatever BF game having 64-player matches unless the game can allow it when it sees what console version you have.

Brian D 2 years ago

I like having the option, of console or pc. If we can get hardware that is up to date with today’s pcs put into the next gen consoles, and at a price that the majority of gamers can afford, I’m all for it.

My issue is people looking down on pc gamers because they spend more money up front, or people looking down on consoles because they aren’t up to date spec wise.

If I drive a porsche I don’t look down on others who drive $30K cars, and act like they aren’t worth anything.

It’s more so the extremes of both sides that get to me, which is why I posted that Consoles futures look bright.

I guess I just get real disappointed in people for not wanting…nay, EXPECTING better. It seems like people just either don’t care or they simply give up and don’t bother having something that, to be honest, many of them COULD obtain if they just worked at gathering their resources.

Hell… I’m an ex-Army pharmacy technician. I make $11.86/hr (which is CRAP for what I do…) and the wife works at the local newspaper where she doesn’t always reach full time hours.

But we budgeted and I bought parts over the course of several months. In order to do this and keep the parts in a similar range of ‘newness’, I had to do TONS of research. It was a lot of planning and keeping tabs on what was coming out, what would suffice for extended periods of time without requiring upgrade, etc.

Sounds like a lot of over-analysis to some I figure. But… It did the trick and at least I know that my efforts paid off – and will for some time to come. (It was a 100% new build, after all.)

In that, I also figure that a lot of people out there are just LAZY and would rather just ‘settle’ to avoid the work.

Read my above comment that I just posted in response to one of yours. I’d reckon that most gamers aren’t computer guys and don’t know how to install computer parts. Plus, it just costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time.

I make quite a bit more than you, but it makes no difference, im sure my bills are just higher.

and not many people are like us in justifiying what they are buying, or saving up for the long run to get something better, rather than just buying cheap right away.

My main issue was not in dropping the money for my gaming hobby (it takes second to my car enthusiast side), but i wanted to get my girlfriend into gaming. PC gaming was too much for her, shes not that hardcore. started with a Wii, then 360 and PS3.

coming from a nintendo family, growing up with every xmas being a videogame under the tree, i knew games inside and out. i took some time off from them during school, and university, but got back into it when the 360 had been out, and gears was the title to have. Wii came along, PS3 came along, and finally a PC came along.

i can appreciate various sides of the industry, and i love sitting down at my desk to play BF3, Civ V, or SWTOR, but i also enjoy the 360 and ps3, the wii, or even the iphone/galaxy.

bottom line is, as much as i love the hardcore PC titles that melt my face off (air craft carrier level of bf3), those wouldnt be available to me if it werent for all those copies sold on 360 and ps3. and my ps3/360 titles wouldnt be as good as they are without the pc industry pushing forward making the consoles that much easier to deal with from past experience.

both SHOULD coexist, and work well, but there are crazies and fanboys out every.

Ken, i got below cost on my gaming rig. I have great connections, and know too many people. Dont try to talk down to me, or think that using google makes you look any more intelligent than anyone else who posts here. dont be so pc biased.

Uh, are you replying to the right person? Who uses google for what? When did I mention anything about that? I know about the costs of PC hardware because I’ve been building PC’s for over 10 years… If I need google now, I think all of my clients need a refund, lmao…

And speaking of talking down to people, I’m merely stating facts, I’m not like someone here talking about how much more money they make and how many people they “know.” I don’t need to “know” anyone, I AM that person you need to know to get the hook-up. Nice try though.

But didn’t you know, you’re opinion is wrong and the points you make aren’t valid unless. ‘someone’ says it’s the ‘truth’ lol

jago 2 years ago

Eh… In the end to me it’s all about the games. Yes games look better on PC but not all games are available for it… Legally lol. So until then i will continue to own both consoles and my PC and enjoy the best of both worlds.

Um, yah, I don’t think I ever made it seem like there’s only one opinion. Actually I’m the one that has been pointing out that everyone should just do what they personally enjoy because it’s their personal preference that matters the most. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this for you to understand this, I am merely speaking against the blatant false myths that people use as their reasons for things…

Using Arma 2 as a representation of every pc title us a bit extreme, and it’s also one of the most deep, niche titles available. It would be like console gamers using a unique title lime heavy rain, or La noire to represent all console games.

You spend far too much trying to explain things to others that don’t need explaining.

Justify yourself all you would like, but you’re not going to get anyone to change their mind about anything, but that’s the beauty of gaming, there’s so many titles and platforms that everyone can be happy.

I’m going to go back to gaming on my 61 Sammy tv, sitting on my lazyboy couch, with controller in hand, talking on xboxlive hands free. You go back to sitting at your desk mouse and keyboard in hand, I and enjoy!

And as someone who claims to know better, you should realize that you can hook up any modern PC to your HDTV (I have mine hooked up to my HDTV, how else would it work as a HTPC?? LOL) and you can actually use an Xbox controller if you wanted to (although honestly I don’t see why…) And game from your lazyboy. So that argument kind of doesn’t work at all, but it’s alright if you think it works.

And I use ARMA II as an example because that’s how games SHOULD be. Let you have the freedom to do what you like how you like it. Have controls that let you pick what you want to do, not what the game wants you to do at that moment. Games were more like that back in the day when PC gaming was more popular, but now that console gaming is so popular, every game have been simplified and dumbed down to work on them because that’s where the money is. Oh well… I guess ADD is really gripping society…

Not me, I’m saying you COULD do that. But it wouldn’t be like a Xbox 360 since there wouldn’t be jaggies from hell everywhere and the textures wouldn’t be blurry and you would be running games at a full native 1080p resolution, not just 720p upscaled… But you already knew that since you’re so smart. Good stuff!

So somehow you say you don’t care what I have to say, then think you can label me as a PC fanboy…

Well, that’s unfortunate. Maybe if you’d paid attention you’ll remember that I just bought a Wii and I am looking for a cheap Xbox 360 so I can play Forza 4… But I’m just a PC fanboy because I can save a lot of money by playing my games on a PC… Yep, makes total sense from someone who is obviously very objective, reasonable, and objective. All based on information you just admitted to not paying attention to. Good stuff again!!

Ken J 2 years ago

@Brian D

“Justify yourself all you would like, but you’re not going to get anyone to change their mind about anything”

And AGAIN, I can’t believe how many times I have to repeat this and you STILL don’t understand it, I’m not trying to get ANYONE to change their mind about anything. I don’t care if you enjoy console gaming, it doesn’t affect me at all. I am only speaking against the blatantly false myths that some people try to use as their reason for it… Wow, I could have sworn I’ve said this exact statement like 50 times already. How many more times before it gets through to you I wonder?? lol.

PC vs console! Who cares?! The debate is stupid. PC gets upgradable parts annually, the console was designed to be affordable and easy to use.

I, personally, don’t think the extra cash for less jaggies, higher resolution, higher frame rate, etc is worth it. I suppose it depends on how much extra you spend, either way it’s debatable (an endless debate) depending on so many factors that can be shared or exclusive to each person.

Sure, you can make a cheap build but it’s somewhat worthless, you’ll need to upgrade sooner than later for some games (which, in a sense, makes it the same as consoles). So you’ll want to future proof it.

IMO, the price of a high-end PC could only be justified if you’re using it as a universal device. Not everyone can leave it hooked up to the tv, or make a home theater, or whatever, though. The lady would be pissed if I’m checking my email on TV.

Whatever works best for you, just enjoy your games and shut up! And yes, PC is way more expensive than console, the games are hella cheaper though. No, you DO NOT have to upgrade UNLESS you went with a really cheap build. Cheap being used relatively.

Well, if you buy a pre-built PC like an Alienware, Dell XPS, or something, then yes, it’s expensive. But for someone like me who has the knowledge to save money while getting quality hardware it’s not that expensive at all… Since the release of this generation of consoles (Xbox 360/PS3) I’ve only spent about $500 on my PC and I have a gaming rig/HTPC/web browser/photoshop-workhorse/document-making machine that can do it all and all of my games cost a whole hell of a lot less than the console games… And even console gamers have a PC, just not one they can game with, so if you really think about it, since my PC does both gaming and being a PC, you have to compare that to buying a console AND a PC. So even in intitial hardware costs I have them beat. But I know not everyone knows how to build a PC piece by piece, just saying, it’s not a “rule” that you have to pay more intially.

I still don’t see how you built a $500 PC that runs like a high-end PC. $500 is about the lowest you can go when you buy a brand new PC, and you say that you bought a PC AND parts for it for $500. I just don’t buy it.

I didn’t build a $500 PC. That’s how much I spent in total upgrading it since the release of the latest generation of consoles. I had a PC before that, but could reuse a lot of things like the case, power supply, optical drives, harddrives, etc… My GPU cost around $200, my CPU cost around $200, and my motherboard and memory cost a little over $100. So in total, that’s a little over $500 to get my PC the way it is now. And after selling my old CPU, memory, and motherboard (I kept my old graphics card as a backup), my total investment into my PC is even less. So while everyone spent a whole crapload of money to buy the new Xbox 360 or PS3 back when they launched, I gamed on with my PC, then shortly after that, I bought the ATI 4890 to upgrade my PC. So that’s $200. Then I kept gaming with my PC. Then recently, like 6 months ago or maybe a little longer, I got a new motherboard and memory and Core i5 CPU. Still using the 4890 I bought way back when. All the while, my PC was always faster than the consoles… Even before the upgrades. The upgrades were just so I could play games I saw coming out that I thought would require a faster rig so I can play them with the graphics settings on high… Otherwise I would have to lower the graphics settings, and didn’t want to do that.

I never really understood people who spend a ton of money “upgrading” their case for looks. Unless the case doesn’t work somehow for what you’re upgrading to, I say leave it alone. I actually am still using the same case I’ve had for probably close to 10 years, lol. It’s not a bad PC case though, but I did buy it for $9.99 on black friday back in the day, lol.

But if you know me in real life and have seen my PC, you’d think I’ve had the same exact PC for 10 years because on the outside it has never changed, lol.

@Ken J Im sorry did you just complain about repetitive games, and then say you like any nintendo game? From the most generic, call of duty equivalent platformer, to the repetitive bosses and no story worth learning, to simple puzzles that should be ashamed to be called such. The repetitiveness of those games almost outshines that of the forza games which change as much iteration to iteration like madden. The kettle calling the pot black.

Not sure where you got that from. He explained the elements of Nintendo games that make him think Nintendo games are repetitive. He referenced a few different games to help make his point.

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

I know you’re quick to defend anyone who disagrees with me without being objective, but read his comment again:

from Nintendo platformers to “call of duty” (first-person shooter) to “forza” (racing).

Yah, I don’t see that either…

Matt 2 years ago

They are simple comparisons. He used the words ‘equivalent,’ ‘that of,’ and ‘like’ to show that they were comparisons. It’s simple English. I don’t know how you don’t understand. Just read Hereticdonutboy’s comment below and hopefully you’ll understand.

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

None of those are equivalents to one another, and that’s my point. I don’t know how you don’t understand that. Maybe you can read my reply to him below and maybe you can understand.

Hereticdonutboy 2 years ago

@ken j Why are you repeatedly sighting ARMA and acting like its pc only. Ever hear of operation flashpoint? ARMA is the sequel to that series, which is on consoles.

What happened to my reply?? lol, anyway, the gist of it is, they are not nearly the same game, trust me, lol. Just like the console ports of the original Rainbow Six and original Ghost Recon games. Not these atrocities by Ubisoft…

that was never meant in any heavy handed way, it was implying that even though i make more than $11/hr, with more income usually comes bigger builds.

Mr “I am the guy everyone knows” and “i get to drive all the fast cars”.

Grow up.

@hereticdonutboy, its not worth it.

@Cyryl, i agree, completely, and hope you didnt take my “income” comment the way KenJ here is implying.

Brian D 2 years ago

And, yes, “go play both of them and find out” is exactly what you should say, and let others decide for themselves.

Ive done it, and others have as well, we arent telling people to not buy PCs, or not buy PC titles, we are simply conversing about the specs of the new xbox 360 system, in relation to the specs of the current 360. Theres no need to start comparing apple to oranges, by bringing up PC performance in the thread.

So please, feel free to share your opinion, but cutting others down just because they disagree with your view is pointless, a waste of time, and only makes you come off even more stereotypical than an average PC fanboy.

Ken J 2 years ago

@Brian D

Wow, you never learn huh? Don’t “quote” quotes that I never said. You are the one talking about what great connections you have and all of the people you know to get hardware. I was saying that I’m the guy that’s building computers for people, so technically, I’m the guy to “know” if you want a computer built or upgraded… I don’t see anywhere where I said that I am the guy everyone knows. And I never said I get to drive all the fast cars, I have a pretty short list of cars that I considered worth mentioning that I’ve driven, and I’ve compared how those cars or cars similar to those performed in the games mentioned and have come to my opinions about those games based on that. I don’t see anything there that’s at all “showing off” or whatever since I never even came close to implying that I am in any way capable of OWNING any of these cool cars.

So perhaps you need to grow up and stop with this strawperson strategy, changing my arguments to make it easier for you to have a rebuttal…

Ken J 2 years ago

@Brian D

LOL, look who’s talking. I’ve never ever said that any console player should get rid of their consoles and switch to playing on the PC. (OMG, I can’t believe I’m explaining this AGAIN, when will he understand????) I’m merely dispelling the commonly cited myths people use as reasons why console gaming is “better” than PC gaming. I’ve said this about a million times already here, and most of those have been to you since you can’t seem to get it through your thick skull, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind about what they game on. If someone says they choose a certain gaming system because it’s their own preference, that’s exactly why we all choose what we choose. But once they start citing these myths about how extremely expensive PC gaming is or how it’s impossible to play PC games on a HDTV with a controller, I am simply pointing out how those statements are not correct. I am not saying anything against their opinion for console gaming, just that PC gaming is not more expensive and how you can play PC games on a HDTV with a controller. I mean, seriously, do I need to repeat this again? Are you just messing with me at this point? No way someone can have the same thing explained to them as clearly as I have so many times and still don’t understand it… No way…

Hereticdonutboy 2 years ago

@ken J
I find it astonishing that a man of you stature is unable to comprehend simple comparisons. I went down the list of games that you specified you enjoyed in the order that you mentioned them. mario is the call of duty of platfomers, using gimmicks to attract casual gamers 2 games that offer little change from their predecessors. metroid has a repetitive bosses and a story that’s not worth learning or paying any attention to I’ve been mentioned zelda like you did stating that they have boring, unimaginative puzzles that only make you scratch your head for maybe 2 or 3 seconds. I’ve been compared forza to madden, stating that while they cover a large area the difference between sequels is minimal and if you played the second one you have played the third and fourth. now that I have simplified do you understand?

Don’t give yourself too much credit. You fail to realize that different genre’s of games have different standards and expectations. Most important are the expectations. If a game takes itself seriously and tries to portray itself as some “super mature” game with big burly guys, you can’t compare that to a game about an Italian plumber in a magic land stepping on walking mushrooms and shooting fireballs out of his nose…

And games like Madden and Forza are SPORTS games. Unless the sports change, the games will not change, since their objective is to replicate how the sport really is played. Of course the changes are minimal. Don’t really see any point in even pointing that fact out… With something like a racing game, all that matters is that they got the physics correctly and they accurately represent the cars they include in the game. After they’ve accomplished that, all there is left is to improve the graphics, improve the details of the cars themselves, and include as many vehicles as possible without including too many garbage cars that nobody wants to drive…

Anyway, point is, because I say I don’t like it when a game is too repetitive, it is actually more of a perception of repetitiveness. If you enjoy the thing the game makes you do very often, then it will not feel repetitive to you. If you don’t enjoy it, then it will be repetitive. EVERY GAME EVER MADE is pretty much just a bunch of repetitive actions. The difference is if these actions are rewarding to the player, or just monotonous and tedius…

And lastly, where do you even have any idea about my “stature?” And how exactly is my height relevant to any of this?? lol

Instead of replying to you above, I’m choosing to respond to you here.

“From the most generic, call of duty equivalent platformer…”

Here, Hereticdonutboy was stating that he thinks some Nintendo games are generic platformers that are to the platformer genre what Call of Duty is to the shooter genre. He further explained this here: “mario is the call of duty of platfomers, using gimmicks to attract casual gamers 2 games that offer little change from their predecessors.”

“The repetitiveness of those games almost outshines that of the forza games which change as much iteration to iteration like madden.”

Here, he actually should’ve said “as Madden does” rather than “like Madden.” But the point is still the same. He was saying that the repetition of Nintendo games, in general of course, is almost worse than the repetition of Forza games, which change as much from game to game as Madden NFL does. The references he made really were easy to understand. I find it incomprehensible as to how you don’t understand. Have you never heard people make comparisons or references?

Uh, I understand that, but tell me, do you think it’s a fair comparison to compare MARIO to Call of Duty??? I’m sorry, but in terms of platformers, Mario is pretty much the gold standard that everyone else tries to live up to. How does Call of Duty have any relevance to that in ANY genre??? Sure it sells a lot, but now we’re talking about the opinions of the modern gamers which I’m trying to make the argument have a much lower standard in their gaming than before…

And can you really compare the expectation of repetitiveness between a platformer and a shooter?? A platformer, by it’s VERY DEFINITION is a game about timing your running and jumping. You don’t really need many fingers to count that. It’s only TWO things really. Obviously that will be “repetitive” by its technical definition, the difference here is how tedius and monotonous you feel it makes the gameplay. While playing as a plumber lost inside of a world of overgrown reptiles and killer turtles and mushrooms, you platform around, but you also find secrets that are not pointed out to you heavy-handedly like so many other games. Each time you play it through, you can keep track of how fast you complete the levels and how many coins/secrets you find. It becomes kind of a competition with yourself, a single-player multiplayer, lol. To me those things are not repetitive because it’s not tedius to me. While going through a game that tries to take itself very seriously but you have these really predictable gameplay mechanics like swarms of respawning enemies that always magically start right when you start doing something that takes time, and they magically always stop when you’re done doing that act… In this sense, you are killing them not because you want to kill them, but because you “have” to while you’re trying to complete this other objective. It starts to feel tedius and more like work than playing a game for enjoyment. If there was some other way of enjoyment that can be had while killing these enemies, that could make you forget about the repetitiveness, but in my opinion, none of these games offer anything to that nature. For the most part the weapons in most of these games are not at all rewarding to me to use. Some have a novelty in them but that usually wears out pretty quickly.

And I don’t get where you’re getting the idea that I’m complaining about Forza. Haven’t I said many times how I’m looking for a sub-$100 Xbox Slim just so I can play Forza 4???

Matt 2 years ago

How do you think that I got the idea that you’re complaining about Forza? Seriously dude, I mentioned it one time in my whole comment, and I didn’t say anything about you in that sentence. You are being so… moronic. I hate to call you names, but it’s the truth. Nowhere did I give the feeling that I thought you were complaining about Forza. This whole time you’ve been saying Forza is better than GT, so why I would think you were complaining about it?

You can make comparisons of anything to anything. It doesn’t matter that CoD’s a shooter and Mario’s a platformer (although there are several Mario games that aren’t platformers). CoD doesn’t change much from game to game. Mario doesn’t change much game to game. CoD uses gimmicks to keep people interested. Mario uses gimmicks to keep people interested. See the comparison?

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

“…the repetition of Nintendo games, in general of course, is almost worse than the repetition of Forza games…”

Try re-reading what you wrote before acting so surprised at my response. I know you’re reiterating what this other guy said, but it’s said in a way like somehow I was complaining about the repetitveness of Forza and that’s how saying Nintendo games are just as repetitive as Forza would actually make sense as an argument. Saying Nintendo games are as bad as a game that I like simply wouldn’t make sense to even bring up…

Ken J 2 years ago

@Matt

And so you’re saying there are no big differences between the original Mario Bros. game on the NES and Mario Galaxies on the Wii??? Alrighty…

And saying you can compare anything to anything, that’s like a movie critic holding a slap-stick comedy and a serious drama to the same standards of realism, believability, and character development… One or the other will get seriously screwed, lol.

Matt 2 years ago

“And so you’re saying there are no big differences between the original Mario Bros. game on the NES and Mario Galaxies on the Wii??? Alrighty…”

I was just explaining what Hereticdonutboy said/meant. My views aren’t his. However, there were many Mario games that were cash grabs by Nintendo. But I think he exaggerated too much in his comment.

“And saying you can compare anything to anything, that’s like a movie critic holding a slap-stick comedy and a serious drama to the same standards of realism, believability, and character development… One or the other will get seriously screwed, lol.”

But you can compare them as a whole. As a whole, how is the slap-stick comedy? As a whole, how is the serious drama? Now take the quality of the two and compare them. “The slap-stick comedy had its moments, but its humor was mostly terrible and the plot was underdeveloped. The serious drama had interesting characters, and while it was slow at times, I thought it was a great movie. I think the serious drama is a better movie.” See? I compared the two movies and chose which one I liked better even though they are from two different genres. You can compare ANYTHING to ANYTHING. But the way Hereticdonutboy compared CoD and Nintendo games wasn’t a stretch by any means. Nintendo platformers are the CoD of platforming. It’s like how you would say Jimmie Johnson is the Michael Jordan of NASCAR. Two completely different sports, one involving a round ball and one involving fast cars. But the comparison makes sense. It’s simple, Ken.

Hereticdonutboy 2 years ago

@ken j
okay let’s try this again. we all know that call duty is entry level game, with a yearly release cycle, and only gimmick changes between each game. mario is the same except that it’s a platformer. I compared forza to madden because again, gimmicky changes between games. like I said if you played 1 you played them all. I brought of your stature because you said you could drive nice cars for a job which should mean that you’re intelligent , at least enough to understand a simple comparison with you seem to be unable to comprehend. I’ll remember not to make such assumptions about you in the future

Sorry, not an insult that I don’t feel like repeating myself to you once again. Just read what I already wrote… You somehow think those are simple comparisons. Well, let me use your standard here. I’m going to compare this entry-level shaver, to that entry level sports car. We should hold them both to the same standards and expectations since they are in the same general position within their respective product categories right??? Eh… maybe in some places, but really, doesn’t quite work that way… Not to mention I already disagree with you that Mario is to platformers as Call of Duty is to shooters… Mario is the freakin’ gold standard for all other platformers to try to match dammit, don’t talk down about my Mario, haha. Them’s fightin’ words…

I actually spent a little money on my rig, but it’s a development rig not so much a gaming rig. I bought the Geforce 680 when it was new, bought into the sandy bridge-e architecture, went with 4-cores as I didn’t have enough in the budget for the 6 core at the time. Over time I upgraded the memory to it’s max which is 64GB though at 1600MHZ but that’s still a lot of ram.

I also upgraded the case in less than 5 months due to the size… no room in a fortress 2.. went with a cosmos II (spacious but some parts a bit.. cheap but can be replaced (drive bays for example..)
I do want to purchase 2X of AMDs highest end cards for graphics purposes as anything over 2 is just ridiculous..

The initial cost for the machine (including monitors which I’m replacing with Samsung PLS/IPS monitors in a month or 2) was a little over $4K, add all the upgrades etc and we easily added 2K to the initial cost, now add 2 high end graphics cards from AMD and the 6-core cpu from intel and we’re looking at 2.5K so total cost for this rig(after updates, monitors etc is) $9K+.

I DO NOT expect the average Joe to do this kind of rig or have the funds, what I recommend if you want to do PC gaming or heck develop games is to make a plan. What’s your goal what do you need or heck just spec out your rig and buy it piece by piece and put it together, the case and motherboard should be your first purchases and go from there.

However, I LOVE console gaming just for the conveyance however I hate the idiot COD fanboys… I also think the FPS genre as a whole is just flat out boring and has been for have a decade, let it die for a while and bring in something fresh? I seriously called this genre the FPS genre as almost every game was a shooter.. Where’s the platformers or RPGs? Challenge?!

I actually think we’re going to see 4GB of ram instead of 8 for obvious reasons, consoles only need to do 1080P! Your not hooked up to 2 or 3 monitors like a PC (recommend eyefinity if your doing 2X monitors instead of 3) where you need that extra power to just handle the resolution.

Batman looked damn good on PC and looked pretty awesome on the Wii-U for HD resolution.

We’re finally coming out of the soo HD and totally coming out of SD this generation, I expect the next-next generation will allow you to use more than one screen or TVs at that time will support higher resolutions (I expect 1440 to 1600P. So, 2560×1600 or 2560×1440 is probably the next step in TV resolution or 4K if you want to pay up the nose for..a TV!